Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good point. There's a rampant tendency to venerate the Constitution as a religious text, revealed by Divine Inspiration to the receptive ear and pen of Man. Behold, we wandered blind and ignorant, and then the heavens parted, bestowing unto us the Constitution! All that is good and worthy, is in the Constitution. Nothing unseemly or unworkable, is in the Constitution. It is the truth, the way, the Word. Amen!
Really, folks? The Constitution was a working-document, a compromise at which a bunch of sweaty dudes in scratchy wool undergarments arrived after rancorous and fraught debate. Yeah, it's better than most. Yeah, it's been around for a couple of centuries. But just because a thing is in the constitution (frankly, I'm done capitalizing it!), doesn't make it holy. And just because something is absent from it, doesn't make it frivolous or dumb.
America is not your "house" it is the governments and they make the rules. If you don't like it and a majority of people agree with you changes can be made. What you do in your house is your business. What other people do in their houses is not any of your business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
But you see, if the majority wishes a certain thing, then eventually, despite our lofty rhetoric of being a Republic rather than a Democracy, the majority will prevail. Often that's a good thing... but not always.
The point is, no one wants their home to be a chaotic mess. No one wants fighting and drama. No one wants to be afraid, or to worry. People want peace, serenity, security, and order. And while they claim to be champions of freedom, within whatever space they control, they are tyrants.
If you don't want to live in a chaotic and disorderly home, why would you want to live in a chaotic and disorderly neighborhood? Or community? Or city? Or country? You wouldn't. The way we deal with the chaos, is we move away like refugees from places we don't like. But not everyone can afford to move away, and thus they become trapped in that chaotic and often violence and crime-filled world. Not just them, but their children, their family, etc.
It is perfectly natural to want to control your surroundings. When you send your children off to a school, you don't want them around certain types of people who behave in certain ways. The same liberals who preach freedom and tolerance, are a bunch of helicopter moms, overprotecting their children.
And while this might seem hypocritical, it is perfectly natural. And there is nothing wrong with it. That is how humans ought to behave. So what is the disconnect? Why are the same people who preach freedom, within their private lives, often the biggest tyrants?
I remember Kamala Harris giving Joe Biden a hard time because he opposed forced-busing. A lot of leftists attacked Joe Biden for it. But would these middle and upper-class liberals allow their children to be bused across town from their "good schools" in their safe suburb? No way. And if the government tried, they would immediately place them in private schools, if not move away entirely. That kind of social-engineering is for someone else's children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound
If my views are in the minority, and said minority wields little clout or influence of voice, then I'm going to be on the receiving-end of the majority's preferences! Now pray tell: how, in practical terms, does that differ from living in an authoritarian state? How does it profit me, or serve as salve, that I'm being corralled and stymied, by the Will of the People, instead of the fiat of a dictator?
Government exists, thus everything you preach already exists to some degree. People say they want freedom, but they only want freedom for themselves. Or I should say, they want control over their own lives. But they also don't want to live in the Wild-West. The goal of humanity is not freedom, but happiness. If an authoritarian state made you happy, wouldn't that be better than a free state that made you miserable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound
I don't know where you live but I don't have any drug dealers or prostitutes in my neighborhood.
Do you think it ought to be illegal? If so, aren't you restricting other people's freedom? Why would you do that? And if not, what prevents it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound
The Constitution is a piece of paper, whose power rests with the sovereign power of the State. The State can interpret the Constitution as it likes, augment it as it likes, and enforce it as it likes. As society becomes more complex, more crowded and more suffused with technological intrusion, what we're all going to lose - "liberal" or "conservative" is the capacity of the individual to stand up to the majority.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote.... "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become corrupt as in Europe."
Libertarianism only works in rural areas. You know, "Galt's Gulch" of Ayn Randian fame. Cities cannot be libertarian. As more people are thrown together, especially diverse peoples, the only thing that can maintain order is the strong arm of government. At that point, not only will people accept despotism, they'll demand it. Just as Benjamin Franklin said they would.
"Philia. Aristotelian concept signifying ‘friendship’ — ethno-cultural consensus between members of the same City. For Aristotle, democracy is possible only within homogeneous ethnic groups, while despots have always reigned over highly fragmented societies. A multi-ethnic society is thus necessarily anti-democratic and chaotic, for it lacks philia, this profound, flesh-and-blood fraternity of citizens. Tyrants and despots divide and rule, they want the City divided by ethnic rivalries.
The indispensable condition for ensuring a people’s sovereignty accordingly resides in its unity. Ethnic chaos prevents all philia from developing. A citizenry is formed on the basis of proximity — or it is not formed at all. The abstract, integrationist doctrines of the French Revolution envisage man as simply a ‘man’, a resident, a consumer.
Civic spirit, like public safety, social harmony, and solidarity, is based not on education or persuasion alone, but on cultural unanimity — on common values, lifestyles, and innate behaviours." - Guillaume Faye, Why We Fight, 2001
Delusional much? Libs = live and let live? Are you referring to the same libs that want to control our speech , what we can and cant say , the cars we drive, the fuel we use, the amount of money we make , how much water we use ... Pretty much every aspect of our lives if they really had total control. Conservatives want freedom and liberty , the government to just leave us all the hell alone. For crying out loud, maybe crack a book open and educate yourself.
You can't be serious to think conservatives want government to leave them alone. They want to tell people how they can live and can't live
You can't be serious to think conservatives want government to leave them alone. They want to tell people how they can live and can't live
The left wants the following
Where you can live
What car you can drive
What meat or food you can eat.
How much energy you can use
What words you can use
What gender pronouns are acceptable
What do the right harp on..... abortion. Can't think of much. The right has more of a leave people alone approach.
We will need to flood an area of the country, kick out the 3rd world people and social justice losers. 2 state solution.
^^^this
The United States has become a kleptocracy in which the well-positioned and well-connected extract wealth from the wealth producers, i.e., working Americans.
The practical solutions to our problems are known and would be easy enough to implement were it not for the 0.1% that needs US wages suppressed and unlimited access to our markets and natural resources.
Either the parasites must be evicted from the new state, as suggested above, or voting rights restricted to productive citizens.
The latter seems more practical, but the end would be the same regardless of the path taken.
I am currently reading a book about the modernization of rural France from 1870 to WWI.
Prior to around 1870, rural France was a real backwater - very poor, few roads going to and from the villages, railroads were late getting there, most people worked on farms, most houses were tiny things with 1 room and thatched roofs and people frequently slept with their farm animals, and most people didn't even speak French (as late as the 1860's, only about 40% of the population of France actually spoke French, there were some 20 or so local languages and dialects throughout the country). And so on. People in the rural areas of France even considered Parisians and other urbanites to be foreign.
The France we read about in the history books was largely about the doings of the urbanites and elite (the latter of whom themselves were overwhelmingly urban). But they were actually a minority of the population.
Starting around 1870, various events coalesced to start bringing urban ideas, urban culture, urban tastes and urban wealth to the rural areas. Rural-urban migration increased with the coming of the railroads to rural areas. Increases in military conscription in rural areas brought military enlistees in contact with urban lifestyles and culture, since the military in France back then was run by the urban elite who they tended to train in and around urban centers. They also helped educate the rural enlistees in the French language. All of that the soldiers brought back to their villages when their tour of duty was over. And they also brought all kinds of other ideas (socialism, etc) they learned in the urban areas as well. The migrant workers did this as well.
By the time WWI was over, rural France was well on its way to being "urbanized" and French-ized. Rural people wanted to talk, think and act like your typical Parisian.
That is, the urbanites won.
With the stark contrast between modern US politics being democrats-urban and republicans-rural, I'm reading this book remarking at how many similarities there are in the US now compared to latter-19th Century France. Kids from rural Missouri are going to college in Kansas City or St Louis or Columbia or some other big city or college town in the Midwest, and guess what? When they do that they pick up urban ideas and urban culture. Repeat the pattern all over the US.
So yes, conservatives are going to lose. If the current ideological/political divide in the US wasn't so starkly urban liberal/rural conservative, it would be much more difficult for me to conclude that. But since that divide is there, and since it is so stark, it is easy for me to conclude that.
History shows that when urban ideas and culture do battle with rural ideas and culture, the urban side always wins. Always.
This is an interesting idea, but the political divide in the US is far more complex than that which may have existed in nineteenth-century France.
Their differences may have been largely urban/rural, but our differences are black/white, male/female, citizen/immigrant, rich/poor, and much, much more.
The left (Democrats) are supported largely by blacks, immigrants and unmarried women.
The right (Republicans) are primarily supported by white males and females married to white males.
Urban areas are home to blacks and recent immigrants.
Most suburbs and practically all rural areas are inhabited by populations that are predominately white.
All of these groups have their own unique cultures and subcultures, so good luck breaking this down to an urban/rural political realignment.
What do the right harp on..... abortion. Can't think of much. The right has more of a leave people alone approach.
Which "Right"? Some among the right are quite vehement in restricting:
* who has sex with whom, and under what circumstances
* what chemicals one chooses to buy, sell, or introduce into one's body
* who is allowed to live here, work here, run a business here
* how public events ought to be commenced (namely, by playing the US anthem)
It's a right-wing fascination with the Pledge of Allegiance, and a right-wing thing - back in the 1950s - to add the bit about "under God". Even if I wanted to become a right-winger... and the wokery and harebrained economic "theories" of the Left are doing a fantastic job of driving me into the arms of the Right - I wish to have nothing to do with a political creed that mandates that schoolchildren daily affirm their under-godness.
Oh, and remember the Patriot Act? So much for right-wing <=> leave people alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
... Why are the same people who preach freedom, within their private lives, often the biggest tyrants?
Because it's rarely appreciated by anyone, that to secure freedom means to entail risk and potential harm. We want to be free, while we are strong. But we crave succor and protection, when we are weak. And today's strong, can become tomorrow's weak. If we suspect that our neighbors will take advantage of our weakness, then we clamor for the full fury of the Law to constrain and if necessary to punish our neighbors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
People say they want freedom, but they only want freedom for themselves. Or I should say, they want control over their own lives. But they also don't want to live in the Wild-West. The goal of humanity is not freedom, but happiness. If an authoritarian state made you happy, wouldn't that be better than a free state that made you miserable?
That's a fascinating point, and the beginning of a refutation to Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History". In brief, it is rare to regard freedom as an end in itself. Freedom is merely a means, the end being to avoid being hassled or disrespected or dispossessed. But if we believe that it's the other guy who's going to be hassled, or disrespected or dispossessed, well then, screw freedom, and all hail the Authority!
Last edited by ohio_peasant; 05-30-2021 at 11:58 PM..
But if we believe that it's the other guy who's doing to be hassled, or disrespected or dispossessed, well then, screw freedom, and all hail the Authority!
Politics is the art of making someone else pay the price.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
